Last month, Artinfo reported that:
… celebrated Indian painter M.F. Husain has been shuttling between Dubai and London in self-imposed exile after leaving his country amid harsh attacks from conservative Hindus, who consider his depictions of nude goddesses to be sacrilegious. Now the Qatari government has offered Husain citizenship …
According to Agence France Presse, Maqbool Fida Husain accepted the Qatari offer.
The controversy began in 1996, when, according to Wikipedia, when they were printed in Vichar Mimansa, a Hindi monthly magazine, which published them in an article headlined “M.F. Husain: A Painter or Butcher.” As a result, eight criminal complaints were filed against Husain, who is a Shiite Muslim of the Suleimanis sect, and some Hindu nationalists made his provocative paintings of Hindu deities a major issue.
Often referred to as India’s Picasso (though I don’t really understand why), Husain’s case — after a little bit of digging — doesn’t seem as straightforward as it is often presented.
When the New York Times tackled Husain’s story in 2008, they tried to explain away the reason for his depiction of nude Hindu deities:
Husain insists that nudity symbolizes purity. He has repeatedly said that he had not meant to offend any faith.
But the same article tries to support their premise that he isn’t offending one faith alone with the fact that he has offended Muslims too:
But one of his paintings, showing a donkey — to the artist, a symbol of nonviolence — at Mecca, created a ruckus among his fellow Muslims.
The problem is that the the two (nude Hindu deities, donkey in Mecca) aren’t exactly comparable. One ignited a national campaign that included his house being vandalized and artworks being attacked, while the other involved more localized grumblings.
One recent writer on a Wall Street Journal blog served as an apologist for Husain and wrote that people’s questioning of Husain’s motive for the move as suspicious, particularly to a country that is not a democracy, is irrelevant. I disagree, I think it is very relevant.
According to a columnist for the Hindustan Times, Vir Sanghvi, there may be a double-standard at work and some religious Muslim’s — though not all — are being hypocrites in regards to artistic censorship. Sanghvi writes:
Try looking at the Husain saga through the prism of secular double standards.
Our position as liberals is that an artist has the freedom to paint what he likes. If some Hindus are offended by Husain’s nude Saraswatis, then they can simply look away. They have no right to restrict his creativity or to deny the rest of us the opportunity to view Husain’s work.
But sceptics (all of whom are not necessarily Muslim-haters or communalists) frequently ask the obvious follow-up question: how would we have responded if Husain had painted Muslim religious figures in the nude?
The answer is an uncomfortable one. Even if he had painted the Prophet, fully clothed and portrayed with respect, we would not have risen to Husain’s defence with the same vigour. We would have said “Islam prohibits visual representations of the Prophet so Husain should not have offended Muslims”.
That answer weakens our claims about artistic freedom. Why should Husain’s creative abilities be hampered by some Quranic injunction? Why should non-believers be bound by the dictates of believers? Why do we campaign so hard for Husain and yet condemn the Danish cartoonist who offended Islamists?
So, what do you think the chances of Husain painting images of Mohammad or nude portraits of his wives are? Back in 2008, the New York Times reported that he was working on a series on Arab civilization, which was to be exhibited in Qatar, I assume it already was. What makes me think that there were no nudes in the series?
While I don’t support censorship of any kind, I think it’s really disturbing that Husain chose Qatar, which regularly censors everything, as his home rather than remain in democratic India.
According to a 2009 report by Canadian OpenNet Initiative, which monitors online censorship:
The censors in Qatar admit to filtering pornography, political criticism of Gulf countries, and material deemed hostile to Islam. The authorities also pervasively filter gay and lesbian content, sexual health resources, and privacy and circumvention tools. Political filtering is highly selective, but journalists self-censor on sensitive issues such as government policies, Islam, and the ruling family.
I admit I’m disturbed by M. F. Husain’s move. I know he’s probably looking for a lovely place to retire, some place that will treat him like a king, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I take the values of democracy too seriously and the thought of a creative person who has greatly benefited from freedom — even if that has come with the bitter sting of public protests and legal problems — would choose a repressive autocratic state over a democratic one is just too much for me.
Arriving amid increased anti-Asian racism and continuing discourse about the inhumanity of its prison system, this documentary is a strong historical gut punch.
A “show within a show” at the Whitney Biennial pays homage to the visual and literary art of Theresa Hak Kyung Cha, whose life was cut short through an act of brutal violence.
The Newark Museum of Art Presents Jazz Greats: Classic Photographs from the Bank of America Collection
Photographers Antony Armstrong Jones, Milt Hinton, Chuck Stewart, Barbara Morgan, and more capture a breadth of legendary and local musicians and performance artists. On view through August 21.
Social media persona Sad Beige Werner Herzog presents a seemingly endless array of sniffling tots stuffed into gray, brown, and tan knits.
A new Bronx location for the Universal Hip Hop Museum is set to open its doors in 2024.
Art and photographs, publications from the 19th and 20th centuries, manuscripts, posters and more are set to cross the auction block on August 18.
Researchers at the University of South Florida have created a tool that can potentially help hone human concentration through the creation of art with only the power of the mind.
The settlement comes after Tate prevented an artist who exposed sexual harassment by one of its largest donors from co-curating an exhibition.
Let’s be honest: On a best bathrooms list, no one wants to be number two.
Advocacy groups are pushing for a 5% royalty in resales, which would pertain even after the artist dies, in which case the funds would go to their estate.
This week, the Getty Museum is returning ancient terracottas to Italy, parsing an antisemitic mural at Documenta, an ancient gold find in Denmark, a new puritanism, slavery in early Christianity, and much more.